Podcasts about swi snf

The heterochromatin-enriched HP1 proteins play a critical role in regulation of transcription. These proteins contain two related domains known as the chromo- and the chromoshadow-domain. The chromo- domain binds histone H3 tails methylated on lysine 9. However, in vivo and in vitro experiments have shown that the affinity of HP1 proteins to native methylated chromatin is relatively poor and that the opening of chromatin occurring during DNA replication facilitates their binding to nucleosomes. These observations prompted us to investigate whether HP1 proteins have additional histone binding activities, envisioning also affinity for regions potentially occluded by the nucleosome structure. We find that the chromoshadow-domain interacts with histone H3 in a region located partially inside the nucleosomal barrel at the entry/exit point of the nucleosome. Interestingly, this region is also contacted by the catalytic subunits of the human SWI/SNF complex. In vitro, efficient SWI/SNF remodeling requires this contact and is inhibited in the presence of HP1 proteins. The antagonism between SWI/SNF and HP1 proteins is also observed in vivo on a series of interferon-regulated genes. Finally, we show that SWI/SNF activity favors loading of HP1 proteins to chromatin both in vivo and in vitro. Altogether, our data suggest that HP1 chromoshadow-domains can benefit from the opening of nucleosomal structures to bind chromatin and that HP1 proteins use this property to detect and arrest unwanted chromatin remodeling.

The PHO5 and PHO8 genes in yeast provide typical examples for the role of chromatin in promoter regulation. Both genes are regulated by the same transcriptional activator, Pho4, which initiates nucleosome remodeling and transcriptional activation. In spite of this co-regulation, there are important differences in gene activity and in the way promoter chromatin undergoes chromatin remodeling. First, PHO5 belongs to one of the most strongly induced genes in yeast being 10-fold more active than the PHO8 gene (Oshima, 1997; Barbaric et al., 1992). Second, chromatin remodeling at the PHO5 promoter affects four nucleosomes (Almer et al., 1986), whereas only two nucleosomes are afffected at the PHO8 promoter (Barbaric et al., 1992). Third, neither the histone acetyl transferase Gcn5 nor chromatin remodeling complex Swi/Snf seem to be critically required for chromatin remodeling at the PHO5 promoter (Barbaric et al., 2001; Reinke and Hörz, 2003; Dhasarathy and Kladde, 2005; Neef and Kladde, 2003). At the PHO8 promoter, on the other hand, absence of Swi/Snf results in the complete loss of chromatin remodeling under inducing conditions. Furthermore, Gcn5 is required for full remodeling and transcriptional activation at this promoter (Gregory et al., 1999). Ever since these differences were recognized there have been speculations about the underlying reasons. This work shows that these discrepancies are not a direct consequence of the position or strength of the UASp elements driving the activation of transcription. Instead, these differences result from different stabilities of the two promoter chromatin structures. The basis for these results was the development of a competitive yeast in vitro assembly technique in which differences in nucleosome stability between promoter regions could be directly compared. This technique originated from a yeast in vitro chromatin assembly system that generated the characteristic PHO5 promoter chromatin structre (Korber and Hörz, 2004). As shown here, this system also assembles the native PHO8 promoter nucleosome pattern. Using the competitive assembly system it was shown that the PHO8 promoter has greater nucleosome positioning power, and that the properly positioned nucleosomes are more stable than at the PHO5 promoter. This provided for the first time evidence for the correlation of inherently more stable chromatin with stricter co-factor requirements. Remarkably, the positioning information for the in vitro assembly of the native PHO5 and PHO8 promoter chromatin patterns was specific to the yeast extract. Salt gradient dialysis or Drosophila embryo extract assemblies did not support the proper nucleosome positioning. However, nucleosomes in chromatin generated in these systems could be shifted to their in vivo-like positions by the addition of yeast extract. This indicates that the nucleosome positioning mechanisms in vitro are uncoupled from the nucleosome loading machinery. The nucleosome positioning at the PHO5 and PHO8 promoters was energy dependent suggesting a role of chromatin remodeling machines in generation of the repressed promoter chromatin structure. In spite of this, the chromatin remodeling machines Swi/Snf, Isw1, Isw2 and Chd1 were dispensable nucleosome positioning at both promoters.

BRG1 is a conserved subunit of the SWI/SNF family of ATP dependent chromatin remodeling complexes. These complexes play an important role in the transcription of various genes by making promoters accessible to the transcription machinery. Mutations in BRG1 have been connected to various cancers. In addition, a BRG1 knock-out in mice is lethal at the periimplantation stage, while BRG1 heterozygote mice are predisposed to exencephaly and tumors of epithelial origin, showing the importance of BRG1 in normal development and disease. In this study, I used Xenopus laevis to study the role of BRG1 because this system allows manipulation of endogenous protein levels by the use of antisense oligonucleotide mediated knock-down as well as interference analysis at early stages of development by overexpression of wild type and dominant negative protein variants. Since BRG1 is conserved among all vertebrates, I initially studied the role of BRG1 in Xenopus development by overexpression of wild type and dominant negative human BRG1. Overexpression of dominant negative human BRG1 gave a ventralized phenotype suggesting a role of BRG1 in dorsal-ventral patterning. The specificity of phenotypes was confirmed by using wild type human BRG1. On the other hand, overexpression of wild type and dominant negative variants of human BRM showed no developmental phenotypes. Prompted by these results, a frog brg1 cDNA was cloned by searching the Xenopus laevis EST database, using human BRG1 as a query. In addition, monoclonal antibodies specific to xBRG1 were raised and characterized. The expression pattern of Xbrg1 was found to be ubiquitous until gastrula stage and is tissue specific from neurula stage onwards. A Xenopus homologue of INI1, a subunit of SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex, was cloned using database search. The expression pattern of Xini1 was found to be similar to Xbrg1. Using site directed mutagenesis, a dominant negative construct of xBRG1 was made by mutating the conserved lysine into arginine (K770R). Loss and gain of function studies showed that BRG1 is involved in AP axis formation during Xenopus development. The gain of function studies were done by overex-pressing wild type and dominant negative xBRG1, while loss of function studies were done using highly specific antisense morpholino oligos. Specificity of morpholino treatment was further proven by the rescue of ventralized phenotypes of morphant embryos by overexpression of human BRG1. It was found that BRG1 knock-down affects several tissues as assessed by in-situ hybridization using tissue specific markers. To determine the molecular explanation for these pleiotropic effects, several genes involved in early patterning of Xenopus embryo during organizer formation were analyzed. The analysis was done using whole mount in-situ hybridization, revealing the spatial gene expression pattern. This analysis revealed that BRG1 mostly affects WNT signaling dependent genes required for dorsal mesoderm formation while leaving pan-mesodermal genes unaffected. Furthermore the genetic interaction of BRG1 with the WNT pathway was confirmed by epistasis experiments showing that overexpression of β-CATENIN can rescue the xBrg1 antisense morpholino oligos dependent ventralized phenotypes as well as formation of secondary axis by overexpression of β-CATENIN could be prevented by BRG1 knock-down. Since the whole embryo represents a complex situation whereby many signaling pathways interact with each other and influence the outcome, the animal cap system was used to analyze the effect of BRG1 on various signaling pathways by analyzing corresponding direct target genes. Animal cap assays showed that the effect of BRG1 is signal specific. Moreover, among the affected signaling pathways, BRG1 knock-down affected only specific genes. These results showed that the BRG1 effect is gene and signal specific. The importance of WNT signaling has also been shown in cancer as well as in haematopoietic and embryonic stem cell self renewal. Given the importance of the WNT signaling, the role of BRG1 on the WNT signaling pathway was further investigated. Treatment of animal cap cells with various doses of Wnt8 mRNA showed the differential requirement of the WNT signal for maximal stimulation of direct target genes. The direct target genes of the WNT pathway showed various degrees of reduction in their maximal stimulation upon BRG1 protein knock-down. The requirement of BRG1 for proper stimulation of the WNT target genes was further confirmed by overexpression of xBRG1 under sub-optimal conditions of WNT stimulation. A major conclusion from these experiments is that BRG1 protein defines signaling thresholds for WNT-mediated activation of target genes. This implies that chromatin remodeling complexes are part of the machinery, which translates inductive signals into spatial gene expression domains.